Douglas Alexander: I remain convinced that there are huge opportunities for Glasgow, not simply in terms of the Commonwealth games bid, which I sincerely hope will be successful, but in its being another part of the United Kingdom to benefit from 2012 Olympics. One of the key attributes of London's successful bid for the Olympics was a recognition not just of the magnificent diversity within that global city, but of the fact there were real opportunities for a legacy for every part of the United Kingdom. I know that that is certainly the intention of the Olympic authorities.

Ruth Kelly: I do not think I could have made my position any clearer to the House. We have no plans at all to revalue council tax in this Parliament. In fact, I think I am going to re-label the word "scaremongering" "spelmongering", because the hon. Lady is causing fear in houses up and down the country with ill-founded allegations about the Government's plans. Instead of criticising this Government, she should tell us what she plans to do with council tax.

Council Tax

Vincent Cable: Does the Secretary of State fully accept Sir Michael Lyons' criticisms of the council tax benefit system, with £1.8 billion of benefit being unclaimed in the last financial year and a fall of 10 per cent. in take-up in the past decade? If she does accept those criticisms, when and how will the necessary reforms be introduced?

Ruth Kelly: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about how council tax is being implemented and about revaluation and rebanding. As I have made clear on several occasions, we have no intention of revaluing in this Parliament, nor do we have any intention of restructuring the banding system, which would naturally go hand in hand with revaluation, in this Parliament. However, Sir Michael Lyons says that even if we did go down that route, which we are committed not to do in this Parliament, that would not make the council tax system substantially fairer than it is at the moment. Clearly, there would be winners and losers, but the key to making the system fairer is to encourage greater take-up of council tax benefit.

Jim Cousins: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply, but does she accept that there are many attractive neighbourhoods in England's towns and cities, such as Fenham in Newcastle, where house prices are rising far more rapidly than the incomes of local people and where more than 300 people apply for every single council-owned family house that comes up? Does she accept that rising house prices are not a sign that market failure has been overcome, but that new ones with great unfairnesses are being created?

Angela Smith: I am pleased to say that that was not the only Labour gain on Thursday; there was one in my own constituency as well. I take on board my hon. Friend's comments. Clearly, we want to see more homes being built and refurbished, and I will take away the comments that he has made. We are making significant progress, but if we there is more that we can do to advance the scheme further, we should obviously look into that.

Douglas Alexander: With permission, I will make a statement on the conduct of the elections to the Scottish Parliament held on 3 May.
	A great deal of wholly legitimate public concern has been expressed about certain aspects of last Thursday's elections, and I entirely share that concern. It focuses mainly on three areas: the arrangements for the administration of postal ballots, the operation of e-counting machines, and the significant numbers of spoilt ballot papers on the night. When it became apparent in the early hours of Friday morning that difficulties were emerging, I contacted Professor Sir Neil McIntosh, the Scottish electoral commissioner. I expressed to him my concern that these issues be addressed as part of the statutory review of the Scottish elections that the commission is obliged to undertake, and as a matter of urgency. Sir Neil was able to offer me that reassurance, and that investigation is now under way.
	The Electoral Commission has a statutory duty to report on the Scottish parliamentary elections. At the request of the Scottish Executive, it will also be reporting on the local government elections. The commission is an independent body and is committed to ensuring that there is a full and independent review of the Scottish elections. In areas where the commission itself has an operational involvement—for example, in its statutory duty to promote public awareness of electoral systems—the commission will ensure that there is independent evaluation of its own work, as it has done in respect of previous statutory reports. The commission is currently finalising the scope and time scale of the review, but intends to publish a report in the summer.
	One focus of public concern has been the adoption of a single ballot paper for the Scottish elections, and another has been the holding of those elections on the same day as the local government elections in Scotland. The poll for the Scottish Parliament elections is set in the Scotland Act 1998. It has a pre-determined cycle, which the Parliament at the time supported fully. I am not aware of there being any calls to change that. The decision to hold the local government elections on the same day was entirely a decision for Scottish Executive Ministers. It was enshrined in legislation which was fully debated and passed by the Scottish Parliament.
	Without wishing to prejudice the findings of the inquiry, I would like to set out to the House the sequence of recommendations, consultations and decisions that led to the adoption of a single ballot paper for both elements of the Scottish Parliament elections, which are matters for which the Government have legislative responsibility. On 25 May 2004, my predecessor as Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South-West (Mr. Darling), announced the creation of a commission, under the chairmanship of Sir John Arbuthnott, to examine the implications of Scotland having four different voting systems. That commission was independent and included nominations from political parties. The commission issued a consultation paper in January 2005 and spent 12 months gathering evidence and carrying out a wide-ranging and extensive inquiry. The Arbuthnott commission issued its report jointly to my predecessor and the Scottish First Minister on 19 January 2006. The report contained a number of recommendations and suggestions, some of them to the Electoral Commission concerning voter education, others to the Scottish Executive—such as a recommendation to move the date of the local government elections—and several to the Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South-West made it clear that it was unlikely that we would be in a position to implement those recommendations in the report which would require primary legislation in time for the 2007 Scottish elections. However, there was one matter that could be progressed without the need for primary legislation—the suggestion that the two ballot papers for the regional list and constituency member be combined into one, with the regional list on the left-hand column, based on the example of the New Zealand paper. In light of the views of the Arbuthnott commission, I decided to proceed with a wider public consultation in order to test whether the suggested move to a single ballot paper commanded more general support, and to explore the appropriate design of such a ballot paper.
	The Scotland Office launched that consultation on 9 June 2006. In addition, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State met with a range of interested parties, including representatives from disability rights groups, to explore these issues. There was a significant level of support for a single ballot paper. Of 29 respondents, the Scottish Senior Citizens Unity party, the Liberal party of Scotland, ENABLE Scotland and Capability Scotland were not in favour of a combined ballot paper. I have requested that all responses to this consultation are placed in the Library of the House. The major political parties who expressed a view were largely in favour.
	Derek Barrie, the chief of staff of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, responded on their behalf on 15 June. He said:
	"The Scottish Liberal Democrats warmly welcome and fully endorse the proposal to have one ballot paper only for the next diet of Scottish Parliament elections in May 2007. This is one recommendation of Arbuthnott that we fully agree with."
	Peter Murrell, chief executive of the Scottish National party, responded on 16 August 2006:
	"The Scottish National Party is in support of the proposed move to a single ballot paper for both votes in the Scottish Parliament elections. We believe that this will aid understanding of both elements of the voting system and, in particular, remove any misunderstanding that the regional vote is somehow a second preference vote".
	Lesley Quinn, general secretary of the Scottish Labour party, responded:
	"The Scottish Labour Party strongly supports a single ballot paper, as this will simplify voting, counting, voter awareness and understanding. A single ballot paper will reduce the potential for voter confusion and be easier for people to use".
	No response to the consultation was received from the Scottish Conservative party.
	Beyond the political parties, the Electoral Reform Society responded:
	"The Electoral Reform Society supports the use of a single ballot paper for the Scottish Parliament Elections".
	SOLAR—the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland—responded:
	"The SOLAR elections working group unanimously agreed to support the proposal that both Scottish Parliament contests be contained on one ballot paper."
	To explore further the issues in advance of decision, as part of this consultation, the Scotland Office requested the Electoral Commission to research with voters the impact of any possible change to the ballot paper format. On 4 August 2006, Sir Neil McIntosh wrote to the Under-Secretary of State enclosing the findings of that research, which involved focus groups in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Inverness and Dundee. A copy of the research has been placed in the Library of the House, together with the covering letter from the Electoral Commission.
	In that covering letter, Sir Neil McIntosh wrote:
	"As you can see, the research draws a number of clear conclusions for the design of the Scottish Parliamentary Ballot Paper. These conclusions point to the interests of the voter best being served by: A design of ballot paper that incorporates both the regional and constituency ballot papers alongside each other on a single sheet of paper".
	The findings of the focus groups supported the move to a single ballot paper, with a significant majority of respondents agreeing, and with the overall preference in favour of a single combined ballot paper rather than two separate papers. Only after that extensive consultation, involving the widest possible range of stakeholders, the support of the main political parties who expressed a preference, research indicating the best interests of the voter being served by a single ballot paper and clear official advice, was a decision taken to proceed with a single ballot paper for the Scottish parliamentary elections.
	I will now deal with the issue of delays in the administration of postal ballots. The handling of postal votes is increasingly a subject of public interest and concern, which is why we already have stiff penalties in legislation to prevent fraud. The use of postal votes in higher numbers than before makes that all the more important. When it became clear that such delays were occurring in the days prior to polling day, I instructed my officials to contact the Electoral Commission to ensure that those matters would be fully investigated as part of the statutory review.
	However, the processes at local level for the preparation and delivery of postal votes are a matter for returning officers and their staff. They make the contractual arrangements that they judge appropriate for their area. They are well aware of the tight time scales involved in getting out the papers to voters. When the Electoral Commission reports, I will, of course, examine whether the Government can take steps to help ensure that the postal vote problems that beset regions such as the highlands and Dumfries and Galloway, among others, do not happen again.
	Finally, I shall deal with the issue of e-counting. In 2005, the Scottish Executive approached the Scotland Office to discuss the option of using e-counting at the combined poll. That arose mainly because of the benefits in relation to handling a count of ballots under the single transferable vote method. Manual counts of STV would take many days and be highly complex. My predecessor as Secretary of State, after careful assessment of advice, gave an agreement in principle to the option, but stressed the need for systematic testing and evaluation of the equipment and software. That took place throughout late 2005 and into 2006 up to the final procurement decisions.
	Many tests and demonstrations were held for electoral administrators, political parties, special interests and others. Various contingencies were tested, including power failures and ballot papers that had been creased or folded. That process was led by a steering group comprising officials from the Scotland Office, the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament, as well as representatives from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland, the Scottish Assessors Association and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers. I am advised that none of the simulations gave any evidence of the kind or scale of problems that we saw in some centres on Thursday night and Friday morning. Clearly, this is an issue which will be central to the Electoral Commission's report.
	There are several issues that need to be explored in relation to the problems encountered in the conduct of these elections. The Electoral Commission must now be allowed to undertake its statutory review which, as I have said, will be available by the summer. I will, of course, update the House at that stage in light of its conclusions.

David Mundell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	The Secretary of State is responsible, as he himself acknowledges, so will he now apologise to the people of Scotland for Thursday night's debacle? In particular, will he apologise to the tens of thousands of voters disfranchised due to their vote not being counted? Does he agree that it is totally unacceptable that around 100,000 people—compared with 16,000 in 2003—who actually made the effort to go to a polling station had their ballots disallowed, and that while there is no evidence of disproportionate disadvantage to any party, it does create unease amongst the electorate that in Airdrie and Shotts, for example, where the majority was 1,146, there were 1,536 spoilt papers?
	Does the Secretary of State agree that the public's confidence in the electoral system will be restored only if a full independent inquiry into what happened takes place? While the perspective of the Electoral Commission will be important, does he accept that it was integrally involved in these elections and—in particular and as his statement suggests—in the design of the ballot paper? The conduct of the elections was influenced by many political decisions and they, too, must be the subject of scrutiny. In that regard, before giving the go-ahead to the constituency and regional vote single ballot paper, did the Secretary of State actually read the report sent by the commission on 4 August, which showed that there was least scope for voter error when two ballot papers were used, and does he accept newspaper reports that the commission put an overly positive gloss on that report and omitted to disclose the finding that the single-paper option was more likely to lead to errors and therefore contribute to a higher number of invalid votes?
	I accept that the Scottish Conservatives acceded to a single Scottish Parliament ballot paper, but what they did not accept was the use of that ballot paper on the same day as council elections under a different system of voting. Does the Secretary of State accept that every objective body from which evidence was taken recommended the decoupling of the elections, and that since the local government elections would inevitably impact on the Scottish Parliament elections, he cannot shirk responsibility for those two elections taking place on the same day? Does the Secretary of State accept that somebody has to take responsibility for the situation, and that it lies with his Government and with him?

Douglas Alexander: I am not convinced by the case that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I am not sure that such terminology is helpful, in that it seeks to prejudge the serious and considered review being undertaken by the Electoral Commission. A whole range of new measures have been introduced by the Government to give greater assurance to voters in terms of voting methodologies, and it ill behoves him to seek to create a partisan advantage out of what is a serious issue for the Scottish people.

Douglas Alexander: I am sure that I, and many others both in the Cabinet and elsewhere, will give due consideration to the review being carried out by the Electoral Commission.

Gerald Howarth: Many people not only in Scotland but throughout the country will be appalled by the Secretary of State's complete lack of contrition for the national humiliating chaos and shambles in Scotland. May I suggest that the Secretary of State take the advice of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, East (Mr. Marshall), abandons this obsession with electronic systems and goes back to the old-fashioned system that commands the confidence of the people of this country? The returning officer in my borough of Rushmoor in Hampshire decided not to use an electronic signature verification system, and instead to resort to the mark 1 eyeball, the result of which was that we had no problems in Rushmoor. The returning officer, Mr. Andrew Lloyd, did an excellent job and I commend him to the Secretary of State for his advice.

David Hamilton: I, along with most MPs, watched the battle take place on Thursday and Friday—and I have great concern that while people in the electoral system will be reviewing the system, they are actually part of the problem, so we must be careful about that. May I make a point about the confidence of the Scottish people? When the majority is lower than the number of spoiled papers, should not all those papers be recounted? That applies to all parties.

Richard Ottaway: Is the Secretary of State aware that in the Greater London authority elections three years ago, there were 385,000 spoiled ballot papers—three times as many as there were in the recent Scottish elections? Will he ensure that the findings of his review are used in next year's GLA elections, and if, as he says, the same contractor was involved in the GLA elections three years ago and the Scottish elections last week, will he please ensure that that contractor has nothing to do with the GLA elections next year?

Douglas Alexander: In terms of ballot papers being ruled out, that was a matter for individual electoral returning officers, and in that sense, I am not sure that the conflation of the issue of the contractor and that of the number of spoiled ballot papers holds as an argument. That being said, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the terms of the Electoral Commission statutory review of the elections will be widely distributed, not simply among Members of the House but beyond.

Douglas Alexander: As I have said, when I sought from officials this morning the definitive number of spoilt ballot papers, a figure was available for a number of constituencies, but not the total number of constituencies in Scotland. That work is continuing. On the first point that the hon. Gentleman put to me, I cannot comment with authority this afternoon on the conduct in each individual constituency at the count, which is rightly the responsibility not of a politician but of the electoral returning officer in that constituency. If there are specific concerns in relation to specific counts, the appropriate action to take is to discuss that with the electoral returning officer in that particular constituency on the night, and thereafter, if necessary, to take whatever further action is required.

Ian Davidson: I do not wish to prejudice the forthcoming trials of the guilty, but I wish to make some points about the remit given to the Electoral Commission. In particular, may I ask whether it will be allowed to make publicly available all the ballots that were ruled out, so that they can be examined—either the ballots themselves or copies thereof, particularly the local government ballots? That will enable us to clarify whether, when three X's had been marked, there would have been some way of allowing at least one of those votes to be counted. Can the rules for recounts be clarified, and can we ask the Electoral Commission to clarify whether a financial clawback from the returning officers and the firms involved would be possible, as they have not delivered adequately? Will my right hon. Friend examine the question of wasted votes, too? In Glasgow there were more than 78,000 wasted Labour votes in the second ballot. There were also 91,000 wasted Labour votes in the West of Scotland, and 112,000 wasted Labour votes in Central Scotland, on the second ballot. I certainly hope that the House will reject his proposal that the European Union be called in to monitor the situation. It should not be called in to monitor any European—

Ian Pearson: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"welcomes publication of the draft Climate Change Bill, which will make the UK the first country in the world to establish a long term legal framework for managing the transition to a low carbon economy, setting ambitious binding targets to cut carbon emissions by 26 to 32 per cent. from the 1990 level by 2020 and at least 60 per cent. by 2050, which can be revised in light of significant developments in international policy and climate science, and establishing an independent Committee on Climate Change to advise on setting statutory five year carbon budgets and to report to Parliament annually on progress; further welcomes the Government's comprehensive approach to reducing emissions from all sectors of the economy and the proposals in the energy review to cut carbon emissions by up to a further 25 million tonnes of carbon per year by 2020; recognises that home energy use for heating, lighting and appliances accounts for more than a quarter of domestic UK carbon emissions; applauds the Government's proposals to improve building standards so that from 2016 all new housing developments must be zero carbon; recognises the Government's commitment to improving the energy efficiency of existing homes and tackling fuel poverty through Warm Front and the Energy Efficiency Commitment; welcomes the Budget 2007 report statement that by the end of the next decade all householders will have been offered help to introduce energy efficiency measures; and looks forward to further development of policies in this area."
	Climate change is the greatest long-term challenge facing the human race. It is a top priority for the Government, at home and internationally. The broad cross-party consensus on the urgency of the issue is a strength of our politics. Sometimes, when people outside the House observe the partisan nature of our proceedings, they misunderstand the fact that we can have knockabout debate that is, rightly, questioning of the Government, while still reaching a broad consensus as to the policy prescriptions and action required. That is important, because climate change does not discriminate, whether in the UK, US or the rapidly emerging countries such as China, India or Brazil. Climate change is a threat to us all and, therefore, a challenge to us all.
	Without global action on climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases will continue to increase. All countries will be affected. The poorest nations will be hit hardest, but the UK and other developed countries will not be immune from the consequences. We are already starting to feel those consequences, as the fourth assessment report published last Friday graphically demonstrated.
	We are committed to the EU's 2° C target temperature rise to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) said, that implies a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of up to 50 per cent. by 2050. As the EU has said, that means that, because developing countries must grow, we and other developed countries must cut emissions by between 60 and 80 per cent. We are ready for that. We already have our 2050 target of at least a 60 per cent. Cut for CO2 only. In relation to other greenhouse gases, more emissions reductions will be achievable, and we will do even more if needed. We will, of course, keep our goals under review in the light of scientific evidence and international developments, and the draft Climate Change Bill contains a specific clause allowing us to do that.

David Howarth: I thank the Minister for giving way again. Would it not be better if the Government took a unilateral lead on this issue; otherwise, no progress will be made? This morning, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research told the Environmental Audit Committee that it has been able to calculate perfectly reasonable estimates of the British share of international aviation and shipping emissions by using a simple 50:50 rule? Could the Government not do the same?

Ian Pearson: I do not agree with the hon. Lady. Annual targets do not work for one simple reason. We do have cold winters—for example, 1996 and 2001 were both relatively cold winters—and energy consumption and CO2 emissions went up by some 3 to 4 per cent. compared with other years. By picking a five-year period, we are acting consistently with Kyoto. When other Governments considered the issue in the run-up to the agreement at Kyoto, they thought that annual budgets would not work, and that is why they chose a five-year budget period. I stress that we will have annual reporting to Parliament and it will be clear whether we are on course to meet our budget requirements. The hon. Lady and others will no doubt want to hold us to account, just as we want to be held to account for our actions.

Christopher Huhne: It is difficult to understand the Minister's point about annual targets. The assessment will be made in retrospect, after the year in which the carbon emissions happened, so we will already know what the temperature was in the winter and what the GDP growth was. Both of those are easy adjustments to make in any benchmark, and the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England makes that sort of adjustment every month. I cannot therefore understand why Ministers persist in arguing that it is too difficult for the Committee that they propose to set up in the Climate Change (Effects) Bill.

Ian Pearson: The hon. Gentleman is an economist, so he is used to dealing with many variables. The practice of having budgets that are set over a five-year period where the total amount of CO2 counts is a simple way of demonstrating what progress the Government are making. It will be clear to the public whether we are on target to meet our budget because we will report, as regularly as the information is available, on our performance against those targets and in accordance with the legislation that we hope to put before the House in due course.
	I stress that more action is in the pipeline, for example, the phasing out of inefficient light bulbs and the removal of inefficient white goods from the market. We also need to continue our work to engage the public. An "Act on CO2" campaign has recently been launched to help make individuals more CO2 literate. Part of that will be an "Act on CO2" deal, which will set out how the Government and individuals can work together to reduce CO2 emissions. Everyone can make a difference, especially in their homes through improvements to insulation, the use of energy-efficient products, better energy management, increasing recycling and wasting less food.
	The public sector also needs to play its part and give the necessary lead. It is important that we meet our commitment of making the Government office estate carbon neutral by 2012. I acknowledge that our performance to date has not been as good as it should have been, and the hon. Member for Eastleigh made a number of comments in that regard.
	That is why the Government are taking a number of steps to improve our record and that of the wider public sector. We are working hard to make sure that buildings and products procured by the Government are energy efficient. Every secondary school in the country is being rebuilt and refurbished. As part of that, over the next three years £110 million will go into helping them reduce their CO2 emissions. Some schools will achieve carbon neutrality.
	Many Government Departments have energy-efficient lighting and are phasing out the use of inefficient light bulbs. Government offices make increasing use of renewable energy, including biomass boilers, solar panels and wind turbines but, again, we need to do more. We are also reducing the environmental impact of Government travel. All official and ministerial air travel is captured under offsetting schemes, and we are committed to reducing CO2 emissions from road vehicles. We are also leading the way by reducing those emissions from the Government car fleet

Ian Pearson: I agree entirely. As I mentioned, a sum of money has been allocated to help improve the greenness of our schools. I have visited a number of schools that already have wind turbines and solar panels fitted as standard. As we roll out our building schools for the future programme, we need to make sure that the new buildings being constructed are low or zero carbon emitters, if at all possible. In addition, they must be well adapted for the climate change that, to a certain degree, we are bound to face in the future.

Ian Pearson: I said at the start of my speech that a clause in the Bill allows us to change the targets, in the light of scientific and other international developments. That remains the case.
	I must apologise for having to leave the House before the end of the debate, but I am representing the Government at the Commission on Sustainable Development meeting in New York. Regrettably, it is one of those occasions when things cannot be done by means of a video conference; we need to be there in person. We will certainly offset the carbon cost of my flight and the carbon costs incurred by the officials who are attending the meeting.
	Five-year carbon budgets will require the Government to set binding limits on aggregate CO2 emissions over the budget period. We will set three successive carbon budgets, covering 15 years, in legislation. They will limit the total amount of carbon dioxide so that every tonne of carbon dioxide that is emitted will count. As I was saying earlier, we think that that is a much more sensible approach than annual targets. That more sophisticated system of carbon budgeting will be very clear to UK businesses. It will give them certainty in terms of their future planning and investment while ensuring that the Government are accountable to Parliament and to society for their actions.
	A committee on climate change will advise us on the pathway to the 2050 target, on the level of the carbon budgets and the reduction effort needed across the economy, and on the optimum balance between domestic action and international trading in carbon allowances. The power and responsibility to create a low-carbon economy rests with us all and everyone will have contribute—from businesses to Government, the public sector, consumers and civil society. What is required is action at all levels—within the UK, through the EU, and through international agreement.
	The Climate Change Bill will create a more coherent approach to managing and responding to climate change in the UK. It will involve ambitious targets, powers to help achieve them, a strengthened institutional framework, and clear and regular accountability to Parliament. Together with the proposals that will emanate from the energy review and that will be set out shortly in the energy White Paper, the Bill will equip the UK for a successful transition to a low-carbon economy and enable us to act as a beacon for others internationally.
	We need to see action at an international level. Without a new global deal on climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases will continue to increase. The spring European Council agreement was a landmark decision. What it had to say on emissions targets, renewable energy and energy efficiency leads the way internationally. The window of opportunity to reverse the rise in global emissions is narrowing. The science and the economics suggest that to avoid catastrophic climate change global carbon emissions must peak in the next 10 to 15 years. But climate change is not an insoluble challenge. The technologies to reduce energy demand, increase efficiency and develop low-carbon electricity, heat and transport are within grasp. As has been well demonstrated by Stern, the earlier we act across all countries and all sectors, the better it will be for us all.
	We do, however, need to adapt to climate change, as advised in the working group II report from the intergovernmental panel on climate change in April. We need to plan adaptation for the future, but also for today. The impacts are already beginning to be felt. The 2003 heat wave caused 35,000 deaths across Europe and there were £6 billion of insurance claims for flood and storm damage between 1998 and 2003 in the UK alone. The Government take adaptation seriously, but I recognise that sometimes it is not talked about enough in the House.
	We are putting the framework in place to allow Departments, local authorities, businesses and individuals to play a role. That is being done through the development of an adaptation policy framework for Government, which we will publish this year and which will be extended to other sectors next year, through the inclusion of a clause on adaptation in the Climate Change Bill, through funding for the development of groundbreaking probabilistic climate change scenarios for the UK, which will be published next year, and through continued investment in areas such as flood defence, which is an old chestnut that the hon. Member for Eastleigh keeps recycling in his speeches. However, the simple fact of the matter is that we are spending 30 per cent. more on flood defence in real terms than we were in 1997.
	The Government have shown consistent leadership in the field of climate change by setting bold targets and pursuing ambitious policies. We are determined to continue to show international leadership and that drive is strengthened by our domestic programme. We can take some comfort from the fact that greenhouse gas emissions are already between 15 and 19 per cent. below 1990 levels, depending on whether emissions trading is included, and that we will double our Kyoto commitments. However, there can be absolutely no room for complacency. We need to go further domestically and at the same time work to ensure that we agree a comprehensive post-2012 framework internationally that will stabilise greenhouse gas emissions fairly and effectively. That is the task that lies ahead and we will devote all our energies towards it.

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for finally giving way. He will know very well that when we suspended our participation in our agreement with the Conservative party, it was because the Conservatives were unwilling to bring forward any specific policies whatever on the subject, and that continues to be the case. Before he gives us any lectures about following in his wake, or about the efforts of the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), he should be aware that the latter's local authority, West Oxfordshire, has just cut its recycling budget. That will have an effect on global warming, through the effects on landfill and methane. When the right hon. Member for Witney is able to show that he has some influence over his own—

Gregory Barker: I am afraid that I will not because, sadly, those are simply two remarkable exceptions. What about air passenger duty? What about vehicle excise duty? The list goes on. Unfortunately, the Brown chancellorship is not green.
	The next Conservative Government will not increase the tax burden on hard-working families but rebalance taxation so that the polluter pays and the non-polluter pays less. However, we do not simply need a programme of green taxes; we need a green programme—full stop. I am pleased to say that the Climate Change Bill will go some way towards tackling that. We warmly welcome it and will work as constructively as possible with the Government as it passes through the Commons to make it a better and more effective measure. However, it provides only a framework for action rather than action. Given Labour's miserable record in achieving medium-term CO2 targets, we need annual targets in the Bill to keep the Government and any future Government on course and held to account.
	It is ironic that a Chancellor who has never shied away from placing ever more reporting and regulatory burdens on business balks at the idea that his Government might find themselves truly accountable annually. There is no alternative. We must start making a difference in this decade and begin achieving our stretching targets. It is our shared responsibility to the next generation to act now, not pass on our failures to our children. Labour cannot put off all the difficult decisions to some distant or unspecified date. As much as Conservative Members champion the private sector—we want the power of the markets to be fully utilised in the fight against global warming—Labour cannot simply rely on the emissions trading scheme to save its record from years of inertia.
	The Government cannot simply rely on the ETS and, as the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said, "leave aviation untouched" for the best part of a decade. That is not tenable. Labour cannot cross its fingers and hope that nuclear power alone will provide all the miracle answers. However, the Government would be right to examine the way in which we generate and use energy as a source of huge savings in carbon dioxide. With or without nuclear power, we believe that there is huge potential to cut CO2 in the domestic energy sector. By and large, the sector has remained pretty much unchanged since the Chancellor was a boy in the early 1950s. However, we will unleash a new energy revolution and harness the huge efficiencies made possible by uniting our demand for both heat and power only if we decentralise to the most local level.
	Decentralised energy runs counter to the Government's instinctive centralising tendencies. It goes against the grain of the Chancellor's old, 1980s mindset. However, the answers to 21st century energy problems lie not in a drawer in Whitehall but in our local communities. We need the Government to hack away at the red tape and overbearing regulation that currently inhibits decentralised energy. We need the Government to make it not only easier but advantageous for new local payers to enter local electricity markets, whether they are large businesses such as Tesco, public sector institutions such as schools and hospitals or simply a family trying to do their bit through photovoltaic roof tiles.
	We need to be far more ambitious in targeting energy saving, and innovative in providing solutions. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) is right to say that we need to make energy service companies a reality in the United Kingdom. To do that, we need to change the culture of the Government's regulators to put the reduction of CO2 emissions at the centre of their mission. It cannot simply be an add-on. We need the Government to empower local communities to make a difference, to set new standards locally, to blaze a trail and thus allow local communities to go further than the clunking fist in Whitehall currently deems fit.
	If we are to make up for lost time and start to make strides in the next decade towards an enterprising, low carbon economy, we need genuine leadership at the centre and local delivery. As last Thursday's massive gains of nearly 900 seats in the English local elections show, when people want something delivered locally—cleaner streets, warmer homes or local action against climate change—they will vote blue and go green.

Sharon Hodgson: I think Labour Members can all agree that we are grateful to the Liberal Democrats for choosing to highlight the Government's ongoing work in combating climate change.
	I do not believe anyone would take issue with the idea that the fight against climate change, like charity, must begin at home. Much has been made of the small changes that we can all make to our lifestyles, which when added together should make an enormous difference. However, we must remember that "home" is not just something that belongs to the individual or the private person. New homes that are not yet occupied are an important consideration. Companies have their own homes, perhaps even several homes across the country, and we as Members of Parliament have our own home here in the House of Commons. I want to spend a few minutes examining what is being done, and in some cases what needs to be done, in all those different homes across the country.
	I expect that all hon. Members have heard a fair few "light bulb" jokes in their time, but I doubt that anyone has heard the one that asks, "How many MPs does it take to change a light bulb?" The answer, on this occasion, is 77—the number of Members who signed my early-day motion 947, which called for a ban on the sale of incandescent light bulbs.
	Some of my constituents suggested to me that I was doing my patch a disservice, as the first light bulb was invented in Gateshead, in my constituency, by Joseph Swan, who was born in Sunderland, another part of my constituency. For me, however, that proves that both Gateshead and Sunderland have been at the forefront of the energy agenda in the past, and I have every faith that they will continue to be so in the future.
	I would not presume to claim that what happened next was an immediate response to my early-day motion, but needless to say I was delighted when the Chancellor announced that the sale of old-fashioned energy-hungry light bulbs would be phased out by 2011. That represents a clear commitment from the Government to lead people in the right direction, and to enable all of us to make the small changes that will deliver a big difference.
	I know from spending time in my constituency that although the message is getting through, there remain significant obstacles for the Government to tackle. It is all very well preaching from our parliamentary pulpits, but we must remember that for families who are surviving on low incomes, pursuing a green lifestyle carries a sometimes unsustainable cost. The Government have announced that from next year, every household will be able to monitor the amount of energy being used at any given time. That is exactly the sort of simple innovation that should be supported: such aid will help people to stop wasting not only energy but money, and will therefore be especially useful in low-income areas.
	The Warm Front scheme forms a vital part of the Government's energy efficiency commitment, and will have provided consumers with 40 million bulbs by 2008. I know that the Government are also working hard at European Union level to try to find a way of reducing VAT on energy-efficient goods such as low-energy light bulbs. I hope that, with the support of Members in all parts of the House, we shall be able to find a solution that will make energy efficiency affordable for all.
	We do not want to see the development of carbon inequalities, especially if they closely reflect income inequalities. If we cut carbon costs, we must ensure that everyone can meet their own efficiency targets. The Liberal Democrats do not seem to have solutions to that problem. Prescribing top-down standards, targets and subsidies such as energy mortgages will only lead to additional costs being passed on indiscriminately to consumers, and that will again hit the poorest hardest.
	It is clear that the Government are committed to leading the field across the world in combating climate change. In fact, many other countries are already having to play catch-up, and I suppose it is no surprise that Opposition parties find themselves having to do the same.
	As I said at the beginning of my speech, it is not just individuals and families who have homes. Businesses throughout the United Kingdom have several hundred thousand homes of their own. It is welcome that, on the whole, United Kingdom business is accepting that it must take responsibility for the changes that are taking place, and adjust its own role to accommodate that. Although EU carbon emissions trading is merely in its infancy, it is testimony to the commitment of our Government that the UK is—again—at the forefront of the scheme and continues to set an example of best practice to the rest of the EU.
	No matter how much we recycle, for the time being at least no home can be without the common dustbin. I never knew that dustbins could be a hot topic of conversation, but refuse collection was one of the biggest issues on the nation's doorsteps during the last few weeks and months. Dealing properly with our rubbish is causing increasing logistical problems, and I can certainly sympathise with those who think that a fortnightly rubbish collection is not sufficient to remove the refuse produced during that period by, for instance, a family of five. Both my local Labour-led councils are evaluating ways in which they can maximise recycling across their two metropolitan boroughs. They will find that task much easier thanks to the draft Climate Change Bill, which locks into statute changes that will enable Britain to adapt with sufficient flexibility to the challenges that lie ahead.
	I agree strongly with one aspect of the Liberal Democrat motion. We have already established that the challenge of combating climate change begins at home, and it is imperative that we as elected representatives make sure that our own house is in order. We must take steps to ensure that Parliament is as energy-efficient as possible. Ideally, it will—like all new homes—be carbon-neutral within the next decade. A raft of possible changes could be made. I am told that last Christmas, after I had tabled parliamentary questions, the House authorities used low-energy bulbs to light the Christmas trees. From memory, I think that that saved about £4,000. Although that is laudable, I am sure that we all agree that combating climate change is for life and not just for Christmas. Targets are in place to cut Government emissions by more than 30 per cent. before 2020, but I believe that we need to act with greater urgency. This issue can transcend party boundaries, and I am in no doubt that it would do the world of good for the Houses of Parliament to lead by example. By doing so, we can avoid having a "Do as we say, not as we do" attitude.
	Of course I will not support the motion, despite the fact that much of it appears to support Government positions. However, I hope that our debate on what is undeniably one of the supremely important issues of our time will inspire us all to go home to our constituencies and prepare to save power, and that that in turn will combat climate change.

Robert Goodwill: I thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) for picking this subject for debate on behalf of his party. I was a little disappointed by some of his comments at the start of his speech about the Conservatives in the European Parliament. Having been a colleague of his for five years, I recall working closely with the Liberal Democrats and their group in the European Parliament putting together a number of compromises, which would have been undermined by some of the luddite policies that the Green parties tended to promote there. However, I shall forgive him and put his remarks down to him still smarting at the "vote blue, go green" phenomenon that was seen to such a great extent around the country on Thursday.
	Any action plan to curb our carbon emissions must take account of how green some new technologies being touted as panaceas really are. Solar panels are often touted as the answer. Although water-heating panels can make some contribution, photovoltaic cells are less difficult to justify from an environmental point of view. Toward the end of last year, I was talking to one of the founders of Greenpeace and he said that although his house is in New Mexico the photovoltaics on the roof did not manage to produce all the energy needed for that house. Although Scarborough is renowned for its sunny climate—especially during the holiday season—its sunshine levels are nowhere near as high as those of New Mexico.
	The Minister mentioned that he will be flying to New York and that he will offset the carbon, but we need to look carefully at some carbon offsetting schemes. Tree planting would only really count if those trees were allowed to become fossils. If they merely rotted down and in due course the CO2 was liberated again, that would not be genuine carbon offsetting. Simple measures such as installing insulation, turning off the standby function on one's video recorder, and turning down the thermostat in one's house are likely to have a greater effect.
	Yorkshire has a number of power stations that burn renewable fuels. Despite a hesitant start, we also have farmers in Yorkshire planting willow coppice, as well as elephant grass or miscanthus. That can be easily justified as making a contribution. However, I am less convinced of the environmental or even the economic advantages of importing olive pressings from north Africa to burn in power stations in Yorkshire, which is happening at present.
	The European Union has set a target of 5.75 per cent. for biofuels in transportation by 2010. Germany and France are confident that they will reach that target early, and bioethanol and biodiesel are being promoted there. There is tremendous potential within the EU to produce those fuels, given that 10 per cent. of our arable land is currently in set-aside, but we must look at the environmental impact of taking land out of set-aside. I and many other farmers have entered into the entry level scheme. That will be fairly easy to reverse, but the environmental improvements from it are, perhaps, less tangible than those of higher level schemes. However, it will be much more difficult to take land out of those environmental schemes, and although we will produce energy from that land there will be an environmental fallout.
	We also have a lot of waste oil in the EU, which is used for cooking chips and in catering. Previously, that oil was used as animal feed so it had a positive value. Sadly, since the implementation of an animal by-products directive such oil can no longer be used for animal feed. We need better incentives to stop cooks and chefs pouring oil down the drain and to ensure that it can go into making biofuel.
	My family is trying to make some impact. I have a green cemetery, which I hope cuts down emissions from crematoria. I have also entered into a biofuel contract. Sadly, however, there is no biodiesel plant in the UK. Somewhat bizarrely, my 45 acres of oilseed rape will not go for biodiesel but will be entered in a complex offset scheme with German crushers. My rape will not actually go to Germany, but rape in Germany will be used for biofuel and be offset against mine. It is likely that my rape will not be processed for fuel in Hull or Erith in Kent, but that rape that is offset against mine will be processed by ADM in Hamburg or Bunge in Mannheim. Germany has taken the lead in this area because it has given capital grants and fuel rebates to kick-start the technology.
	In the UK, we have the energy aid scheme—a subsidy to encourage farmers to produce biofuels. Of the €45 per hectare available, €22.5 goes to the crusher. The problem that we in the UK have is that we have signed up to the highest level of modulation. As a result, 17 per cent. of the aid that is meant to promote biofuels is being clawed back by the Government. To detach the energy aid scheme from modulation would be a good way of promoting biofuel in the UK. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that.
	Biofuels are being promoted throughout the world. Recently, there were riots in Mexico City, with people complaining that the price of their staple, maize-based diet had increased because of maize being turned into ethanol in the United States of America. In terms of the overall energy balance of producing ethanol from maize, there is merely a 13 per cent. reduction in CO2 after account is taken of factors such as the fuel used in the fertiliser, the cultivation and the transport and processing. That is a fairly minor increase. For biodiesel, various figures have been touted about—50 per cent. energy gain is one figure that I have heard. That does not take into account the non-direct CO2 produced. For example, if my tractor driver takes a holiday abroad and flies to get there, that is not included in the figures on the impact.
	Much of the fuel that Europeans use will be imported from places such as Brazil. Rain forests have been cut down to produce sugar and soya beans. In south-east Asia, oil palms are being grown, which is contributing to the destruction of the orang-utans' habitat. Many of the commodities being used to produce biofuels are commodities that can also be used as food. I recently read that a Range Rover's tank of ethanol would be equivalent to the amount of food consumed by a person in a year. Whenever there are chaotic famines around the world, we are able to send food aid, but that might not be the case in the future as more of the arable land in the developed and developing world is turned over to biofuel production and we do not have the grain surplus to send to aid third-world countries.
	What are the answers? First, we need a good eco-audit of biofuels. We do not want to find that the biodiesel that we use in our cars is deforestation diesel, so we need to consider the energy balance. Secondly, we need to examine more closely technologies that utilise the cellulose and lignin in straw and waste products for which we currently have no use. More emphasis on such research is necessary. Thirdly, we need to utilise that tremendous resource in the EU of unproductive set-aside land. If we can bring that into production in a way that does not damage other environmental concerns, that will be good. We should stop grabbing the headlines, and start embracing some of the emerging science that can deliver the type of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that we all want.

Martin Horwood: Members will be pleased with the overall tone of this debate, which has demonstrated a great deal of agreement on the direction of travel that we should all be going in, even if we cannot all agree on whether we should indulge wealthy urban 4x4 owners in their chosen mode of transport.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) opened the debate in a spirit of friendly competition by reminding us that the only Conservative national election manifesto yet produced under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) scored zero out of 10 for green initiatives, according to Friends of the Earth. My hon. Friend also rightly warned us against Government complacency and the drift in Government policy, which Conservative Members also mentioned, toward the toleration of 550 parts per million as an acceptable carbon dioxide concentration target. The Stern report had very cautionary words to say about that, although in a sense, that report has been part of the problem in tolerating that figure.
	Stern pointed out that according to the Hadley Centre's assessment, a worldwide figure of 550 ppm gives rise to a 69 per cent. probability of exceeding 3° of global warming. Elsewhere in the report, Sir Nicholas pointed out the possible consequences of such an increase, such as the onset of collapse of part or all of the Amazonian rain forest, many species facing extinction, rising intensity of storms, and forest fires, droughts, flooding and heatwaves. Those dramatic and apocalyptic consequences will begin to kick in quite fast. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh said, given the feedback mechanisms that are liable to accelerate global warming, we might be in an uncontrollable situation much earlier than we thought. I caution the Government to move away from the idea that 550 ppm is an acceptable target; it is in fact an extremely high-risk one.
	What we need is ambition. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh said, we need to give the UK first-mover advantage and to bring real urgency to all Government Departments. We need an annual action plan and a dedicated Cabinet Committee to bring together the worthy ambitions often heard from DEFRA Ministers—I count the right hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) as a past distinguished example—but which often do not seem to translate to other Departments. The Treasury certainly failed to introduce anything particularly convincing in the recent Budget.
	The Department for Communities and Local Government, moreover, has failed to promote energy efficiency to anything like the time scale necessary. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) pointed out, it talked out a Bill that would have guaranteed the ability of local councils to set energy efficiency and microgeneration standards higher than the national standard. That was a shameful performance; the DCLG allowed its control-freak tendencies to get the better of its green instincts. We have seen nothing from it as imaginative as the warm homes package that we Liberal Democrats suggested —[Interruption.] Members may laugh, but I should like to see something equally imaginative from the DCLG; however, nothing has been forthcoming. Ours is a really radical proposal that would release funds over a long period, guarantee householders lower bills and release the funds required to tackle the energy efficiency of existing housing stock, as well as new homes. That policy area badly needs to be addressed.
	Nor have we seen anything from the Department for Transport that really addresses the problems associated with vehicle excise duty and the expansion of aviation. We still perhaps face the toleration of extra runways at Gatwick, Stansted and Heathrow airports, even though—in addition to the taxation measures that we have debated today—the constraint of supply of aviation spaces is another way to limit aviation's growth.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh also emphasised the important role of the public sector. We Liberal Democrats suggest using the decent homes standard as a vehicle to offer a green revolution to the least well-off in our society—as well as to the homeowners whom we often talk about in these debates—by, for instance, promoting community renewable energy on a much larger scale.
	The Minister for Climate Change and the Environment replied to my hon. Friend by claiming that there was great cross-party consensus on the urgency of this issue. Some of the initiatives that he described we have supported and would indeed welcome. I would certainly welcome the free household smart meter displays that the Minister appeared to commit to in his speech, but it is therefore a mystery as to why he will not commit to a more ambitious target in the Climate Change Bill. Why is he still talking about including a target of only a 60 per cent. reduction in emissions by 2050, given that he said in his own speech that the Government were ready for 70 per cent? We Liberal Democrats consider 80 per cent. or even higher to be the realistic and necessary target.

Barry Gardiner: I would like to do so, but I cannot, given the plethora of responses that I need to make to points raised in the debate. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman was here for the entirety of it.
	The Environmental Audit Committee did this House a great service when it produced its report on the millennium ecosystems assessment. It highlighted the degradation of whole ecosystems. Throughout the entire history of life on our planet, species extinction has occurred at the rate of one every 1,000 years. That was until now. During the past few hundred years, the rate has accelerated to the extent that we lose one species each and every year. Fluctuations in climate that evolution could accommodate when they happened over millennia now happen so fast that species cannot adapt. The result is the loss of biodiversity and habitat that provide the very ecosystem services on which we as a species depend.
	My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget earlier this year a new fund worth £800 million over three years to support development and poverty reduction through environmental protection, and to help developing countries respond to climate change. The fund will be governed jointly by my Department and the Department for International Development. The first £50 million of the environmental transformation has been earmarked for a multilateral fund to reduce unsustainable deforestation in the Congo basin.
	The fund will not divert money away from our existing spending on overseas development. It is additional to current aid and will be used to fund development activities with local as well as global benefits.
	The proposed title of this debate was "Action on Climate Change begins at Home". Some Opposition Members have tried to present a false dichotomy between domestic policy and international action, but they have lacked either understanding or vision, or both. Some have made narrow party attacks, as cheap as they were wrong. In truth, we have but one, fragile home—this planet. The Government must act to ensure that four things are done domestically to tackle emissions. We must reduce demand for energy, improve efficiency, use lower-carbon technologies, and tackle non-energy emissions from waste, agriculture and land use.
	We are doing all that in statute, in the most detailed and comprehensive way ever attempted by any Government. The Climate Change Bill provides the framework, and is the start, rather than the end, of this Government's ambitions. We will modify and improve the targets and methods as the science and the economics change.
	Internationally, we are working towards the Bali conference at the end of this year, at which the UN framework convention on climate change needs to begin negotiating the elements of a long-term framework after 2012. We are acutely aware that we must reach agreement by 2009, at the latest, if we are to avoid a gap between the first Kyoto period and the second.
	It was action by this Government in 2005 placing climate change at the centre of the G8 agenda at Gleneagles that broke through the stalemate that had developed around Kyoto. The G8 summit at Heiligendamm in June will continue the Gleneagles initiative by trying to secure a package of measures that could be used to achieve consensus at Bali.
	In Paris earlier this year, the intergovernmental panel on climate change established the scientific argument for anthropogenic climate change beyond doubt. Last week in Thailand scientists went further than ever before in quantifying the effects, and last year's Stern report commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out the economic basis for action. At Bali, the UK would wish the UNFCCC to agree long-term stabilisation goals. In our view, that means securing a CO2 equivalent of no greater than 550 parts per million, and an average global temperature rise no greater than 2°.
	I turn now to some of the issues raised in the debate. The energy standards for new homes in England and Wales have been raised steadily, by about 40 per cent. from pre-2002 levels and by 70 per cent. from pre-1990 levels. A new home now uses about a quarter of the average energy for space heating. In December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government announced the Government's proposal for further improvements in 2010 and 2013, with the aim of reaching zero carbon by 2016. The new buildings will be energy efficient and highly insulated, drawing their energy from zero or low-carbon technologies and therefore producing no net carbon emissions from all energy use over the course of a year. The buildings will help to reduce carbon emissions as well as lowering fuel bills for households.
	That is a very ambitious goal, and the Government have taken several steps to help the industry prepare to deliver the transition. We have published the code for sustainable homes, which will assess new homes against a six-level star rating, giving homeowners better information about the sustainability of their homes. From April 2008, we are minded that all new homes should be required to have the mandatory code rating, indicating whether they have been assessed and their home's performance against the code. In this year's Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that from October this year all new homes that reach the zero-carbon level will be exempt from stamp duty up to a maximum of £15,000.
	The Government have set up a zero carbon 2016 task force and are also working with English Partnerships to deliver a carbon challenge, to encourage developers to raise design and construction standards to deliver high-quality zero and near-zero carbon communities that are both affordable and sustainable.
	We recognise that tackling new homes is only part of the picture. The Government also have an ambitious programme to improve the energy performance of existing homes. Building regulations apply to replacement boilers and windows. Around 70 per cent. of a home's energy use is for heating and hot water, so the requirement for all replacement boilers to be the most efficient condensing type will have a huge impact as the stock is replaced.
	Under the energy efficiency commitment, energy suppliers are making substantial investment in consumers' homes. We think that the current phase of the EEC will deliver more than £1 billion of investment, which will more than double under the EEC's third phase that starts next year. The Warm Front programme targets the fuel poor, with more than £800 million being invested in the current spending period. The decent homes programme is also delivering real improvements in the energy standards of social housing. Energy companies will be required to give customers real-time energy displays on demand from January 2008, enabling consumers to have better information about their home's electricity consumption.
	I want to pay tribute to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). His contribution was as informed and imaginative as we would expect, and it proposed real solutions to the problems that we face. Like him, I do not want the carbon tax on imports to ensure no free riders, but we are working to ensure the international consensus that we both desire and which will mean that such a tax would be unnecessary after 2012. However, it was characteristic of my right hon. Friend to raise such an interesting, imaginative and technical point.
	My right hon. Friend also talked about feed-in tariffs. He may know that energy suppliers are developing a scheme to reward household microgeneration better. The Government have said that they will impose such a scheme if they are not satisfied with the outcome of the development by suppliers. Feed-in tariffs are a recognised form of renewable support, but they represent an approach that is fundamentally different from the UK's market-based renewables obligation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson) alluded to her early-day motion about outlawing incandescent light bulbs. I congratulate her on the success of her campaign, and even more I welcome her realism in warning about the effects of tackling climate change on the some of the poorest people in our society, and about the disproportionate amount of their resources that goes to heating and basic insulation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) rightly talked about climate change as a security issue. There will be significant impacts as a result of climate change, even if we take urgent action to mitigate the effects. That is why the Government are taking the lead in adaptation. The welfare, economic and environmental outcomes between now and the middle of the century will depend on our ability to adapt to the impact of climate change, as my hon. Friend suggested.
	The most significant phrase in the motion is
	"offset by other tax cuts".
	The hon. Member for Eastleigh has made it clear in his recent speeches what those other tax cuts would be and where they would occur: 2p off income tax and 2 million low earners out of tax altogether. To give that commitment there has to be an element of certainty. To achieve that certainty the green taxes have to keep rolling into the Exchequer. To keep the revenues rolling in people have to keep doing the polluting activity that generates the tax income. The perverse message put out by the Liberal Democrats is that their policy undermines itself: go green and force taxes up. Green taxes should be used to change public behaviour, not to provide alternative sources of core Government revenue.
	It is a fact that climate change is an international problem. It is a fact that 98 per cent. of emissions arise in the international community outside the UK. It seems pretty clear to all but a party of political dinosaurs that if we are to avoid the same fate as the dinosaurs we must focus on solutions that can be agreed by the international community, and not just on action in the domestic policy arena. That is why, alongside the UNFCCC and the Gleneagles dialogue, the Government have concluded in the past year bilateral partnerships with China on clean coal and with Brazil, Mozambique and South Africa on biofuels. We have agreed clean energy investment with India and co-operation with Norway on carbon capture and storage.
	Domestic policy initiatives give us the moral basis to provide strong international leadership but they address only a fraction of the 2 per cent. of global emissions produced by the UK. We are the generation of politicians to whom has fallen the greatest political and moral challenge since the abolition of slavery 200 years ago. I welcome that opportunity and acknowledge the deep responsibility it places on us all.
	Our responsibility is to work together, setting aside narrow party faction to ensure that the UK realises its domestic targets by 2020 and 2050. More than that, we have a responsibility to engage the world community, to make it seize the problem and to encourage, cajole, caution, facilitate and inspire all the nations that share our true and only home—this planet—to rise to the challenge together.
	 Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Tim Loughton: May I uncharacteristically help the hon. Gentleman, because the situation is slightly unfair? The Minister mentioned things that have come up in our debates on the Mental Health Bill. He may well wish to ask her why she is not prepared to give psychologists the additional powers necessary to enact sectioning in the first place, only to renew sectioning after the statutory period. She is the one who should answer those questions, not someone who has not been privy to proceedings on the Bill in Committee.

Norman Lamb: The Minister is suffering from the problem of having left the Chamber for a short while; perhaps he can consult with his colleagues. The argument that Layard put forward is one example of how resources can be better used to achieve beneficial results.
	The Government need to remedy the damage done by deficits over the past two years and to acknowledge that and to commit to ensuring that that damage is remedied. They also need to be honest enough to recognise that there is a long way to go before we achieve consistent access to services and choice for people in terms of the treatment that they receive. That must be a priority. The Government have to be much smarter at joined-up government. We can achieve the great prize of helping so many people to get better, helping them back to work, and benefiting the economy by ensuring that they have access to the therapy that NICE recommends. Surely we have a duty to those people who suffer in silence and in isolation.

Rosie Winterton: As I said, we have made it very clear that we do not expect mental health trusts to have to make any disproportionate contribution. I recall an hon. Member coming to see me about the proposed withdrawal of an early intervention team. Because that related to one of the very clear targets that we had set, we pointed out that it would not be the right approach, and the health authority did things slightly differently. We were able to ensure that the early intervention team remained in place.
	When I meet mental health staff, I always find that they want us to ensure that financial deficits are sorted; it is important to recognise that. Although mental health trusts have historically often kept their finances in good order, they have always felt slightly vulnerable in the event of financial problems. One thing that mental health staff often say to me is, "We just want the overall situation sorted out. You are quite right to go down the road of doing that, because in mental health, we worry that if things are not right, people will come back to us and ask for more cuts in services." We are on the right track there, but with the proviso that we ensure that mental health services are not asked for disproportionate amounts of money.
	The Opposition motion also calls for appropriate settings to be provided for young people who need to go into hospital for a mental health problem. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has made a commitment to eliminate within two years the use of adult psychiatric wards for children younger than 16. We are writing to strategic health authorities, informing them that if a child younger than 16 is placed on an adult psychiatric ward, it should be reported as a serious untoward incident. That is against a background of massively improved spending on child and adolescent mental health services—CAMHS—from £284 million in 2002 to something like £513 million in 2005, which is a rise of more than 80 per cent.
	I was asked to look again at the Mental Health Bill with particular regard to age-appropriate accommodation. I said in Committee this morning that I would look at whether it was possible to amend the Mental Health Bill along the lines put forward by Young Minds about age-appropriate settings. Bearing in mind what was said about political point scoring, I have to say that I was disappointed to find that the Conservative Opposition put out a press release saying that all Labour Members had voted against this, when I specifically said that I would take the amendments away. We discussed why they were not appropriate at the time and I undertook to keep the Opposition informed about any decisions in order to involve them in the issues. I am therefore very disappointed that they have decided to act in this way.

Rosie Winterton: It is a great step forward that we have the NICE guidelines. Computerised cognitive behavioural therapy is also coming on stream. We still need to make progress, however; there is no doubt about that. The important thing about our approach is that we are demonstrating through the pilot sites that these methods can quickly have a real effect. In such circumstances, we often need to convince commissioners that this is a good approach and that it will help to get care to a large number of people. That is why we are pushing in that direction. There is certainly a commitment; indeed, that was in our manifesto.
	It is also right to say that there are some very real issues that we need to tackle, and we doing so. Those include the experiences of people from black and ethnic minority communities when using and accessing mental health services. However, our national director for mental health, Professor Appleby, recently gave his summary of the progress made in the past 10 years, and he concluded that removing the inequalities of patient experience between ethnic groups through more responsive services, community engagement and staff training was a central part of the agenda and a key priority for the coming years. We are making progress with implementing the "delivering race equality" programme. We now have 160 community development workers in post and we are working with local services to employ the full complement of 500 workers as planned.
	I also recommend the very good work being done in the focused implementation sites, which are looking particularly at why people do not come forward to access services, what the experiences are of people from BME communities when they get into the services, and what problems are involved in ensuring that people receiving those services are treated with respect for their cultural background. That work is about looking at how we can deliver our race equality programme in practice.
	The Government have spent 10 years improving the mental health service and rescuing it from being the Cinderella service that it was during the Conservative years. As the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), pointed out, there has been a great deal of talk from the Liberal Democrats about all the changes that are necessary, but very little illumination of where all the money would come from. On the Mental Health Bill, they have turned fence-sitting into a fine art.
	As part of our changes to the delivery of high-quality mental health services, we must ensure that we update our mental health legislation so that it not only reflects current service delivery but deals with problems involving human rights and court judgments. That is why we decided to update the legislation. Our work has not been helped by scaremongering from certain organisations and, indeed, from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). One of his more bizarre comments was that the Bill would make lobotomies more widespread. He also said that anyone addicted to cigarettes could be detained under the Bill. Such depictions of legislation are the one thing that puts people off using services. The aim of the Bill is to ensure that people are treated; to paint it as some have painted it is quite wrong and unfair to some very vulnerable people.
	The Opposition parties now claim to be the champions of mental health, but time and again they vote against measures that would ensure provision of treatment for those who desperately need it in order to prevent harm to themselves or to others. As I have said, I am not sure that the hon. Member for North Norfolk is aware of everything that his party is voting for, but I can give an example.
	The Opposition parties want to introduce an impaired decision-making test. That would mean that the use of detention was no longer determined by a patient's needs and by risk to self or others. The first question would be whether the patient's capacity to make decisions about treatment was impaired. If their capacity could not be shown to be impaired, detention would be forbidden, however much the patient needed treatment and however much the patient or others would be at risk without it. The hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham and for North Norfolk argue that we are wrongly detaining people who have the ability to make a decision about their treatment. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said that many people under section retained the capacity to determine their treatment. The implications of the impaired decision-making test are clear, however. Not all suicidal patients have impaired judgment.
	The Opposition parties have taken a very libertarian view. If someone has been through all the options and, although seriously ill, understands the treatment and does not pass the impaired decision-making test, who—they ask—are we to ensure that that person is treated? Given that people can refuse physical treatment, why should those with a mental disorder be given treatment? I have been given examples of young women suffering from borderline personality disorder—women who are suicidal and have had a terrible time in life as a result of physical, emotional or sexual abuse, but who, when all the options are explained to them, will still say, "I want to commit suicide." The impaired decision-making test would mean our saying "That is okay. You go and do that." I do not think we are helping anyone by not enabling clinicians to give treatment to such people.

Rosie Winterton: One of the problems in this respect is that there is no definition of impaired decision making. My hon. Friend should ask Opposition Members what they mean by that. If they are saying what they said in Committee and elsewhere, which is that many people under section retain the capacity to determine their treatment, then presumably those people will not get treatment if an impaired decision-making test is introduced.
	Let me return to the case of young women with a personality disorder. Do Opposition Members feel that it is fine to say, "Well, you know all the options and you've still decided that this is what you want to do, but we cannot treat you now as you have understood all the options."? If Opposition Members are content to take that view, I am surprised, but that is their position at present. That is the position that the Liberal Democrats take.

Rosie Winterton: I talked a lot about the motion, and made points relating specifically to it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber at the time.
	I have addressed the points made about deficits, employment and the need to ensure a multidisciplinary approach. That brings me to the point made about teamwork in mental health care being essential, with which the Government obviously agree. But when we introduce legislation that will improve the working of mental health teams and help to ensure continuity of care for patients, the Opposition consistently vote against it. In relation to professional roles, the Opposition fundamentally undermine the role of the responsible clinician by expecting a doctor to be involved at key points, and requiring the responsible clinician to get permission from the doctor. That would keep mental health services rooted in the past. Their approach is about paternalism and protection.
	I am astonished that the hon. Member for North Norfolk can talk so freely about psychological therapies and the importance of getting more psychologists to work in mental health, given that the reality of the amendments to the Mental Health Bill that he supports, which are against the role of the responsible clinician, mean that psychologists will be unable to have such powers and responsibilities. I suggest that he talk to organisations such as the British Psychological Society and the Royal College of Nursing and Unison, which represent 85 per cent. of staff working in mental health services and which vigorously oppose those amendments.

Tim Loughton: Forty-eight minutes later, it is safe to come out from behind the sofa. What a bizarre speech by the Minister! She has been re-running debates that we have had, or might still have to come, in Committee, and has tried to make up for the paucity and confusion of her logic there by resorting to complete caricature and rather bizarre claims, in response to a motion that does not actually mention the Mental Health Bill anyway and is supposed to be about mental health services. I shall not discuss what she said in detail, other than to say that I shall be fascinated to see the record of where I have said that the Mental Health Bill will lead to an increase in lobotomies, because that is news to me. I seem to recall raising with her the subject of whether lobotomies are still permissible under certain circumstances, regardless of the Mental Health Bill.
	I also challenge the Minister on the hoary old chestnut that she has trooped out for some months now about the prevention of suicide by community treatment orders and other provisions of the Mental Health Bill. She has not provided a shred of evidence to back that up, but she is already going on about how suicide rates have fallen. Even so, she still requires, apparently, some of the most coercive mental health legislation of any country in the world.
	I was delighted to receive so many mentions by the Minister—rather more than by the Liberal Democrats whose debate this is, and five of whom remain in their places. I am glad that they did not all head for the door when I started to speak, unlike the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint).
	The arguments I make are not just my arguments or those of my colleagues in the House of Lords. They are the arguments of 80 members of the Mental Health Alliance, occasionally including members of the British Psychological Society and a couple of others that the Minister mentioned several times. I welcome this debate. I am glad that the Liberals are following the Conservative example of trying to raise the profile of mental health issues at Westminster. I have to say, however, that this is the only debate that the Liberal Democrats have had on health matters in this Parliament and only the second since the last election. However, converts late to the party are welcome.
	The timing of the debate is curious. As the Minister said, it curtailed the debate that we were having—more rationally than she suggested—in Committee on the Bill. It is good to raise the profile of mental health. The Mental Health Bill has attracted much publicity, much of it negative because of its controversial contents. I make no apology for my role in raising those objections, but it is important that we also raise the profile of the positive developments in the mental health world and the dedication of all the staff working in difficult circumstances, something that the Minister just managed to squeeze in in the 48th minute of her contribution. We should also mention the contribution of the excellent voluntary organisations and support groups such as Mind, Rethink, the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health, YoungMinds and so on, as well as the carers of all those living with mental illness, on whom much of the responsibility for care falls, however good or not the legislation is. Not least among the carers are young carers, and the estimate is that some 20 per cent. of the 175,000 young carers are living with someone, usually a relative, who has a mental illness.
	While the Liberal Democrat motion is right to flag up the problems and we can support those sentiments, the tenor of the Government amendment is far too complacent. That was borne out by the rather self-congratulatory tone of the Minister's introductory remarks. The amendment paints a far too rosy picture of what most people still agree is the Cinderella service of the NHS, and CAMHS is the Cinderella service of that Cinderella service —[ Interruption. ] Well, I fear that my definition of a rosy picture is rather different from the Minister's and perhaps we should put that into the lexicon of how this Government look at things differently from reality and from the experiences of our constituents.
	I also query why, in a motion about mental health services, one of the co-signatories to the Government's amendment—alongside the Secretary of State for Health and the Minister, the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), whom one would expect—is the Home Secretary. That says a lot about the way in which the Government view mental health and the pitch of the Mental Health Bill. It is about locking people up rather than providing therapeutic benefit for a health problem.

Tim Loughton: I do not think that anyone is convinced. The Government can spin and fudge the figures as much as they like, and we may all agree that the spend has gone up by £1.5 billion since the national service framework was established, but there is no doubt that spending has fallen in percentage terms. That is because mental health has been a lower priority under this Government than it used to be previously. There is no getting away from the fact that the absence of a level playing field can result only in promoting the stigma felt by people involved in mental health in this country.
	Other figures counter some of the claims made by Lewis Appleby. Last year's report from the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health found that nearly two thirds of mental health trusts had been asked to cut their budgets to cover overspending in other areas of the NHS. Since 1997, the number of NHS beds in the mental illness sector has declined by 6,799—almost one fifth of capacity—yet, as I said earlier, twice as many people have been sectioned in the same period. More people are requiring mental health services. The King's Fund report showed that vacancy rates for psychiatrists were over 10 per cent., compared with 4 per cent. across other disciplines. It also showed that vacancy rate for mental health nurses was double that for all nurses.
	The Rethink reports "A Cut Too Far" and "A Cut Too Far: Six Months On" gave a catalogue of cuts, both planned and potential, worth £67 million. They included proposed cuts of £5 million to older people's mental health day hospitals and other services in Suffolk. In Westmorland, proposed cuts involve the closure of two mental health wards at Westmorland general hospital. In the South West London and St. George's mental health trust, which the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) mentioned, Yew ward has been closed and Bluebell ward, previously women only, is now mixed. The drug addiction ward has been closed and in-patient provision for eating disorders has been closed.
	The list goes on and on. Most recently, in Milton Keynes the PCT is to cut £1.4 million from mental health services, including drug and alcohol treatment and a memory screening clinic. Those are rather different figures from the rosy picture that the Minister's mental health tsar has trotted out. I am sure that she will agree that the National Institute of Mental Health is not partisan. Its report, published in 2005, found that the bed occupancy rate was 100 per cent. on average and in London the average was 107 per cent.; that staff in a quarter of wards had to work unpaid overtime; and that half of wards lack a lead consultant, 13 per cent. have no ward manager, 12 per cent. have no administrative support and three quarters have no housekeeper.
	The Mind ward watch survey of 2004 found that 53 per cent. of in-patients said that the ward environment did not help their recovery; 27 per cent. of patients felt unsafe in hospital and 51 per cent. had been verbally or physically abused. The "Count me in" survey, which did not see the light of day for some while, was produced earlier this year. Far from repeating the Government's assertion—repeated even by the Minister in Committee this morning, remarkably—that 99 per cent. of hospitals were complying with the requirement for no mixed-sex wards, the survey showed that this year 55 per cent. of patients were not in single-sex accommodation.
	The situation is getting worse and it is worst of all in mental health hospitals. That is particularly frightening for young people, inappropriately placed in adult wards, in mixed-sex wards. It is a frightening prospect for a 15 or 16-year-old girl who has undergone a psychotic incident; many have given evidence to people interested in the Mental Health Bill.
	The Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Department of Health use the same criteria to classify exactly what a mixed-sex ward is, so the Department really must explain how it has come up with such extraordinary figures that are completely out of touch with reality. I could go into detail about the situation for children and young people, which we debated at length in Committee this morning, and the alarming report by the Mental Health Act Commission, relayed by its chairman, Lord Patel, in the House of Lords. The report revealed that between April 2003 and October 2006, no fewer than 1,308 under-18s were detained in adult psychiatric units with no special safeguards—that is one a day. When the commissioners asked ward staff whether there were any plans to transfer the young person or child to more appropriate surroundings within the next seven days, there were no such plans for nearly three quarters of the children. Those are not short-term emergency measures; such things are happening day in, day out and the situation is getting worse. It is getting worse under the Labour Government, on the Minister's watch.

Meg Hillier: I will not get drawn into a debate about mixed and single-sex wards; I am simply reporting the views put to me by mental health service users in my constituency, and I think that it is important that those views are put to the House. The hon. Gentleman may want to make mischief with that, but I am simply reporting the views of one group of mental health service users to whom I spoke.
	It is important to put on the record once again the many challenges that face residents and mental health service users in my constituency. People in Hackney are three times more likely to be admitted to hospital with schizophrenia than people across England as a whole. Some 40 to 45 per cent. of people detained in the City and Hackney mental health services area, mainly male, are from African and Caribbean groups, yet those groups represent only 22 per cent. of the population. Black people in England and Wales are three times more likely than the rest of the population to be admitted to hospital. Overall, African and Caribbean people, and particularly black people born in London, are 10 times more likely to be given a diagnosis of schizophrenia. We know that there are many factors involved in that. Like the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, I do not believe that the Mental Health Bill will tackle the problem; that is not what the Bill is about. There are many issues that we need to address if we are to tackle the problem. In Hackney, the problem is partly unemployment, but it is also the issue of there being many migrant communities, lots of single people, a high population density and a high turnover of population. People are without the social and support networks that there are in other parts of the country.
	The 2006 "Count me in" census survey found that black and mixed-race in-patients were 85 per cent. more likely to be detained, and Asian, Chinese and other in-patients were 50 per cent. more likely to be detained than white people. White people made up 43 per cent. of the total in-patient population but only 30 per cent. of the detained population. Black people were 35 per cent. of the total in-patient population, but 46 per cent. of the detained population. To put it another way, rather starkly, there were 50 per cent. more black detained in-patients than white detained in-patients, despite there being more than 24 per cent. more white people. We should all ask ourselves why that is, and we need to recognise in this debate that there are challenging issues. The issue is not about what was done by one Government or another, but about service provision, social and health care provision, and tackling the barriers.
	I am a race equality champion for the Commission for Racial Equality, and the commission says that there are a number of barriers. It highlights user ignorance, which can be due to language and literacy difficulties—which I often come across in my constituency—cultural differences related to religion, gender and work patterns, or different needs. In some areas, the location of service delivery is a factor. That is probably not so much the case in Hackney, where everything is on the doorstep, but I hear what hon. Members have said about rural areas; I can imagine the many difficulties that are faced there. Again, I stress the fact that many of those problems will not be solved by the Mental Health Bill, and it is not on to suggest that they will be or to conflate the issues. I started to look at the Bill precisely because of my serious concern about the huge impact on many of my constituents of those inequalities, and I concluded that it will not solve them. Nevertheless, it is an important Bill, which is why I became involved in the Committee considering it.
	I join my right hon. Friend the Minister in congratulating the crisis and early intervention teams, whose work in Hackney and elsewhere is critical in tackling the long-term, challenging issues that people with mental health problems face. We should reach people before they are admitted to hospital. As I said today in a speech in Committee, more advocacy support is needed for mental health users and patients so that they can access services. I commend my local mental health trust, which is working to make sure that users are better empowered to be their own advocates. The Mind mental health user group meets fortnightly to raise issues directly with everyone from service providers to people such as me, their MP, about what needs to be done. It is right that we should recognise that people are people: they have their own views, and are not just users of mental health services.

Simon Hughes: The pleas for better mental health services have come from across the House. We have just heard, quite rightly, about rural areas, and the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) represents an urban area, as do I. The whole of Britain has an interest in this subject.
	Nobody knows what the exact figures are. The Library tells me that about one tenth of the world's population suffer from mental illness and about one in six of the population of Great Britain are assessed as having neurotic disorders. The best figure that anyone can come up with is that one in four of us will, during our lifetimes, have mental illness at one time or another. Like, I am sure, other hon. Members, I did not need to become an MP to realise how crucial mental health services are, because I know that from the experience of people among my extended family and friends, and of people whom I associated with at college or worked with. Indeed, we all know the stories of people suffering from mental illness, sometimes with tragic results.
	On 5 February, the Minister and I were in our places for an Adjournment debate that I initiated about mental health services in south London. On 12 January, the Secretary of State for Health had taken the decision to close the 24-hour emergency service at the Maudsley. In fact, it should have been closed by now, but its closure has been deferred. I shall return to that subject in a few moments, but I also want to link it to a few further points.
	I join others in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) for giving us the opportunity to put this subject on the agenda—and there is no argument but that this subject should appear more regularly on that agenda. I join others in thanking those who work in mental health services, whether in acute services, primary care services or intervention services. Those are all in my constituency: the Chaucer day centre; Guy's hospital, which has mental health wards; and for people out in the community, the Sainsbury centre for mental health is based there too—not to mention many academics working at King's College, which has medical and dental schools.
	Even with all that effort, there are some things that we have not sorted. I have a friend called John, whose daughter Alex is just about to take her finals at Liverpool university. She needed a cognitive behavioural therapist—a matter that I have raised in the House before—but it was impossible for her to get that service. For much of her time at university, she struggled on the edge of being able to cope. Happily, she has pulled herself through, but she had months of waiting before she could be properly treated.
	I am conscious that we are bidding for more funds, and I make a special plea again for universities and colleges to be given the services that they need, so that young people do not have to wait so long. They are often at their most vulnerable in their late teenage and early adult years—girls as well as boys, although it is apparently more common for boys. Their whole future careers may depend on securing the help that they need.
	My brother is a psychologist who works for the Government, specifically in the area of the armed services. He is part of the NHS services for the armed forces. However, we know from what happened at Deepcut and from other experiences that it is vital for the armed services and those in front-line jobs to have the proper back-up services that they need. I hope that in the bids for future funding, when we talk about defence budgets, we will include the facilities needed for all those people, whether they are serving abroad or at home, to have the necessary mental health support.
	I hope that we get work force planning right. I accept what the Minister said about there being more psychologists, psychiatrists, and psychiatric and mental health nurses, but we have not been great in nurse work force planning over the last 20 years. We have not been great at doctor work force planning in the NHS either. We need to ensure that we have the people—and we need to include alternative therapies, too. I very much hope that the answer to the question that the Minister ducked is that a bid has been put in for more money for mental health services in the comprehensive spending review.
	I want to end where I began. Last week, I attended a meeting at the Camberwell leisure centre, where the community was united in calling for a deferral of the decision to close the Maudsley's 24-hour service. That was the united view of the communities across the political parties, and across both local councils. We have the best service in Britain, in the best mental hospital in Britain, in the area that has the most psychotic illness in Britain, not least because my community in Southwark—like that in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch—has a very high number of African and Afro-Caribbean residents, which is one of the factors that add to the numbers.
	I want to end with a quote from an e-mail that I received after the meeting that night, from someone who had been there. No one makes the plea for the Maudsley clinic not to be closed better than he does. He sent the e-mail to my office address at 2.47 in the morning of 4 May. He said:
	"Simon,
	I don't know if you will remember me but I am the young man in the blue shirt from the Maudsley meeting. It's 2.30 in the morning and I am spinning out, and feel in crisis, and the only thing that gives me the strength to hold on and get through this is knowing that in the Maudsley ED, I am not on my own. To know that there is unconditional support, 24 hrs a day, is the strand of hope that enables me to think there is something to believe in and rely on and trust, and I am not on my own. I can't express in words how scared I will be without this service and I am not the only one. I have tried to kill myself twice before, and therefore I am at high risk of actually completing this act, and believe me this is the last thing I want. I want to be able to have a normal life, with my partner and 5 week old son, and I feel that this decision to close the emergency department has made this a less realistic target."
	I shall cut to the end of the e-mail:
	"When you have a meeting with Ms Hewitt please show her this email, and if ever she has the bottle to meet service users, I'd welcome the chance to talk to her and explain how life is at the sharp end of the stick, and not in plush offices in Whitehall.
	Yours sincerely,
	Ruben Nedas."
	Here is someone who knows the value of mental health services. I repeat the plea: please do not close one of the most important ones in Britain; the alternative is no substitute.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
	That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 5422/07 and Addenda 1 and 2, Commission Communication: Limiting Global Climate Change to 2 degrees Celsius—the way ahead for 2020 and beyond; endorses the Government's support for the ambitious reduction targets that the EU has put forward; and supports the Government's objective of ensuring that European policy on climate change continues to demonstrate the leadership that is necessary to galvanise the international community to work towards a global and comprehensive post 2012 agreement.— [Liz Blackman.]
	 Question agreed to.

Greg Hands: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	I welcome the opportunity to speak about a matter that, in recent years, has been of mounting concern in my constituency and across the UK: organised and impromptu dog fighting. I first became aware of the problem of dog fighting a few years ago during a chance encounter with Val Barker, who is the chairwoman of the Clem Attlee, Maton and Rocque tenants and residents association in my constituency. The Clem Attlee estate is one of the largest estates in Hammersmith and Fulham. Val told me of the growing problem of youths breeding dogs for fighting and then sometimes gambling on the outcome of the contest. My initial reaction was that it was a totally mediaeval practice and must surely be a one-off, but I soon started to hear reports of dog fights from other estates and even leafy streets in south Fulham.
	Val Barker tells me that the problem has worsened since she first mentioned it to me. On the Clem Attlee estate, many teenagers are hanging around with—most often—Staffordshire bull terriers. They are often to be seen around the enclosed football pitch. Some dogs are held inside the pitch area and others are held outside. They are encouraged to be aggressive towards each other through the fence. Sometimes full scale fights break out later, which often put an important facility such as an estate football pitch out of action.
	I have to confess that I am not the greatest expert on dogs. I have never owned one and I have never had much contact with them. I am not fanatical about animal rights, but I do believe that needless cruelty to animals needs to be stamped out. Over the past 10 years, I have taken a big interest in everything that happens in Hammersmith and Fulham, including—if not especially—on the big estates. The combination of antisocial behaviour, gambling and animal cruelty is probably unique, in our times at least. My views on gambling have become increasingly negative over the years: I know that it is a major cause of family breakdown and indebtedness, especially, but not entirely, among working-class households.
	Another good source of local information on the dog phenomenon is Gaye Rose from the Hammersmith and Fulham Federation of Tenants and Residents Associations, which is the umbrella group for social housing tenant groups within the borough. She agrees with me that dog fighting is a problem right across the borough. There is a group of young men who live on Coningham road—not far from where the Minister lives—who train their dogs on the grounds of the White City estate. On the William Church estate, the same problem exhibited itself until effective action was taken by the council's street wardens and the local police. There has been a terrible problem at De Palma Court, near Fulham Broadway, with two pit bull terriers being exercised in the grounds. It is a small, quiet block of about 16 flats—if memory serves correctly—with generally elderly tenants. At a recent tenants' meeting, residents were so concerned that they presented local housing officers with photos of the phenomenon.
	I am told that a whole family on Adam walk, a new development in Fulham, is training Staffordshire bull terriers to fight against both dogs and people. It seems that there are outbreaks of such behaviour throughout the borough, but one estate is mentioned more than any other as being perhaps the epicentre of dog fighting in Hammersmith and Fulham: the Flora Gardens estate, where it seems that many of those dogs are kept and trained. Although this is not unique to Hammersmith and Fulham, the police will generally confiscate weapons, but they steer clear of dogs. However, these dogs are a form of weapon. The police generally get a good write up from tenants on the Clem Attlee estate for their work on fighting drugs, but no one has seen much action against dangerous dogs, at least as yet.
	Councillor Greg Smith, the council's cabinet member for crime and antisocial behaviour, has briefed me about some of the less obvious problems caused by dogs being trained to fight. Much of the training takes place on parkland with trees. The dogs have their jaws strengthened through the practice of leaving them to hang by their mouths from the branches of trees. The practice is cruel to the dogs and also gravely damages the trees. It is a particular problem in the north of the borough on Wormwood Scrubs, where many trees have been destroyed. Ravenscourt and Marcus Garvey parks are also favoured haunts for the trainers of those fighting dogs.
	More dangerously, dogs are sometimes trained to hang from the horizontal bar of children's swings in the borough's play areas. I am not an expert on the safety of play equipment, but swings are certainly not designed to be submitted to such treatment. Children's safety might be at risk, while actual and psychological harm is being done to the dogs.
	The council recently introduced a full set of dog control orders. They came in only six weeks ago, so council staff are still being trained to enforce them. I do not have time to describe all the orders, but dogs must now be on a lead at all times in the borough's cemeteries, all its wildlife conservation areas and various parts of its parks.
	Councillor Smith tells me that many dogs have been killed through fighting in the borough in recent years, although no one knows quite how many. Last year, a woman walking on Wormwood Scrubs lost a chunk of her ear thanks to one of those dogs and more serious incidents might arise in the future. Additionally, there is a big problem with intimidation. Many walkers and the owners of other dogs are simply afraid to go near any of the more well-known locations for dog fighting. The new council in Hammersmith and Fulham is following a tough approach on antisocial behaviour, although some in the local Labour party say that it is too macho. I know that the council will take a zero-tolerance approach on dog fighting.
	I have become increasing concerned about dogs that are kept as status symbols or fashion accessories. Anyone on the streets of Hammersmith and Fulham can see the phenomenon. The phrase most often used by residents who contact me about the problem is "blinged-up Staffs". Given the nature of the hours of the House, I often emerge from Fulham Broadway tube station at about 11 pm, or roughly chucking out time. That is often a hazardous time on the broadway because one needs to get past hordes of tipsy or drunken people spilling out of the concentration of pubs there. However, a few months ago, I was surprised to see a new hazard in the late-night scene on Fulham broadway. Two male teenagers were walking their dogs in the dark. The dogs were Staffs and they were blinged up, as it happens. The teenagers were not walking the dogs in the sense that hon. Members would understand, but strutting around with them and looking proud as peacocks with their new and terrible fashion accessories.
	In many other cases, the dogs are kept not as fashion accessories, but to intimidate other people, for impromptu dog fights on estates or in parks, or even to guard stashes of illegal substances. Such animals will typically become guard dogs for drugs that are concealed in homes and cars. Thankfully, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is aware of those phenomena. It says that
	"these dogs are traditionally—but not exclusively—associated with young people on inner city estates and those involved in criminal activity".
	It tells me that the problem exists in all our large cities, but especially in London. The problem is associated with not just white working-class males—the RSPCA tells me that youths of Pakistani origin breed so-called bully cutters for fighting. Those huge dogs are apparently bred and trained for fighting and can be extremely aggressive.
	The RSPCA worries especially about the use of dogs as status symbols and participants in impromptu, but none the less illegal, dog fights. It tells me that the phenomenon is growing rapidly throughout the UK. Sometimes the fights are recorded with mobile phone cameras, like the canine equivalent of happy slapping. The RSPCA particularly urges action against the breeding factories, which are most typically located in lock-up garages, warehouses and disused buildings. Smaller versions appear in individual flats on estates or streets across Britain.
	Turning to the legislative environment, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 had a number of important provisions on dog fighting that I welcome. It is now an offence for anyone to arrange an animal fight, to knowingly participate in making or carrying out arrangements for an animal fight, to make or accept a bet on the outcome of an animal fight, to take part in an animal fight, to knowingly receive money for admission to an animal fight, to keep or train an animal for use in connection with an animal fight, to keep any premises for use in an animal fight, or to knowingly supply, publish or show a video recording of an animal fight. That list sounds extremely comprehensive, but the key, as ever, is in the enforcement. There are one or two other matters that require legislation, but generally most of the attention should focus on enforcement in future.
	One of the weaknesses of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was its focus on breeds rather than behaviour. According to people who know far more about dog breeds than I do, these days, there are very few pure-breed pit bull terriers, but there is a huge and increasing number of cross-bred pit bulls. Pit bulls are bred with Irish bull terriers and other breeds, mainly so that people can get round the law prohibiting pit bulls. I agree with the RSPCA that the legislation needs changing to create more control over the behaviour of dogs and how they are trained. Responsibility should be placed on the owner, and there are strong arguments for specific offences of encouraging a dog to show aggressive and intimidating behaviour.
	In the past 10 years, there has been a huge decline in the number of prosecutions under section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871, which relates to having a dog that is dangerous and not kept under control, and under section 1(3) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which relates to being in possession of a prohibited dog without an exemption. For example, in 1992, there were 209 prosecutions under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, but that declined to just one in 2003, before rising to a mere 11 in 2005. As I mentioned, there were new offences relating to fighting in the Animal Welfare Act 2006, but the new offences do not capture the breeding of dogs for fighting. RSPCA officers have raided what could be called breeding factories, where different types of dog commonly used for fighting are being cross-bred to produce stronger and more aggressive animals.
	The RSPCA has 80 dogs in kennels in connection with dog fighting offences, and it is rare for cases to come to court less than a year after the intervention. It costs the RSPCA about £300 a month to maintain a dog in kennels while it waits for the case to come to court, and that is before any veterinary fees are taken into consideration. Taking action is expensive for the RSPCA, which is often left to pick up the bill while trials are awaited. Clause 8 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 does not make it a criminal offence to breed dogs for the sole purpose of fighting, and that means that unscrupulous breeders cannot generally be prosecuted, and that needs to change.
	The provisions in the Dogs Act 1871 that make it an offence to possess a dog that is dangerous and out of control cover both private and public places. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 applies to public places only. I am not often in favour of the police, or local authority or RSPCA inspectors, having new rights of access to private homes or other private places, but there is an argument for providing such rights in the case of those suspected of training dogs for fighting.
	To conclude, I will set out the legislative changes that may be needed. First, we should make breeding dogs for fighting a criminal offence. Secondly, we should provide inspection rights in relation to properties in which it is suspected that dogs are bred and/or trained for fighting. Thirdly, offences should be behaviour-specific, rather than breed-specific. Fourthly, offences should include an element of aggravation if the owner intentionally caused the dog to be aggressive, for example through its training. The latter might be difficult to prove, but punishments should be severe for those who breed and/or train dangerous dogs to fight each other, or even worse, to attack humans. The enforcement of existing laws is more important than creating new laws. The number of prosecutions has fallen dramatically in the past 10 years, and I look forward to hearing what the Government intend to do to combat this terrible and dangerous scourge.

Ben Bradshaw: I will address that issue, because I think that I may have misunderstood one of the hon. Gentleman's points and should correct the record. Under some elements of the 1871 Act, there has been an increase in prosecutions over the past 10 years or so. In 1992, for example, there were 310 prosecutions under the clause that makes it an offence to allow a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place, injuring a person. There were 645 prosecutions in 2005, the last year for which figures are available. Similarly, as regards prosecutions of a person in charge allowing a dog to enter a non-public place and injure a person, there were 20 prosecutions in 1992 and 44 in 2005.
	Prosecutions for breeding have indeed declined since 1992, but that is comparable to the situation regarding prosecutions for possessing an illegal breed. One would expect prosecutions to decline as the clampdown kicks in and fewer illegal breeds are bred or owned. That is reflected in the fact that the number of prosecutions for possession of an illegal breed has fallen from 209 in 1992 to 11 in 2005. However, the overall number of prosecutions under the 1871 Act and the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 are still significant at 1,335 for 2005, the last year for which figures are available.
	I hope that the attention that the hon. Gentleman has brought to this issue, and that several recent tragic cases have brought to it, will result in a new vigour by the police and enforcement authorities in taking this issue very seriously. However, I recognise that there are problems with enforcement, particularly when it comes to recognising pit bull-type dogs. In some areas, that may lead the police to give it a low priority.
	The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are undertaking a complete review of the 1991 Act in light of the recent attacks. That was spurred initially by my concern that under the law in this country, in contrast to that in most other countries, the convictions and punishments available to the authorities for attacks that take place on private property are far less serious than those for attacks that take place on public property. When a human being is injured or killed, as some have been in certain circumstances, many people fail to understand why the matter should be treated much less seriously if it takes place on somebody's private property than it would on public property. I simply draw the House's attention to the fact that the ongoing proceedings in respect of the Liverpool case are for manslaughter, so clearly the Crown Prosecution Service and the police believe that there are existing powers to prosecute for serious offences when an attack takes place on private property.
	We have written round to all the police forces, including the Metropolitan police, and to the Association of Chief Police Officers, asking for their views on the operation of the 1991 Act. I urge the hon. Gentleman, and any hon. Member who has an interest in this area, to feed into that review. We have also asked formally for the views of animal welfare organisations such as the RSPCA and the Dogs Trust. For some time, the RSPCA and, in particular, the Dogs Trust have been campaigning against the breed-specific bans contained in the 1991 Act passed by the previous Administration in the belief—I have some sympathy with this—that the deed, not the breed, is the real issue at stake.
	I have to tell the House that it would be hugely controversial with the public, who have memories of those terrible cases in the 1980s that involved breeds that were far more terrifying, big and specifically bred for fighting than, for example, a Staffordshire bull terrier, to allow those breeds again. Indeed, most other European countries have followed the UK in introducing some sort of restriction on them. However, that does not mean that I do not fully accept the hon. Gentleman's comments about the need to consider more carefully the behaviour that is associated with the sort of dog fighting that he describes in his constituency. It sounds as if it happens on a more ad hoc, less formal basis, although some of the more serious organised criminal gangs and syndicates are involved. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 is a commoner's Act and it is therefore possible for any Member of Parliament, organisation or institution to take out a prosecution under it. I hope that the police and the courts use the new powers, some of which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, to ensure that the public are aware of how seriously we take the issue.
	The penalties that are now available to the courts as a result of the 2006 Act have been increased. The maximum fine has increased from £5,000 to £20,000. The Act also provides for offenders to be jailed for up to 12 months. I hope that the courts will take seriously the offences that the hon. Gentleman described. As he also said, the Act contains improvements, which include repealing the vague and confused rules that enabled culprits to escape justice in the past. The law now clearly defines all the activities associated with dog fighting. They are not confined to people who actively manage the fighting ring or spectators at the fight, but also cover those who may not necessarily be present but are involved in promoting it. The RSPCA and others welcomed such changes to the law.
	Like the hon. Gentleman, I deplore the current macho youth culture of keeping dangerous dogs as a status symbol. It is worrying, and clearly the law is being broken if the dog is of a banned breed. As part of our review of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, we want to examine whether there should be more training for police in recognising breeds. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that can be difficult in some circumstances. More publicity is required for the public, a new generation of whom have grown up long since the introduction of that Act almost 20 years ago. They may not even be aware that what they are doing is illegal.
	It is also illegal to keep a dog in a way that is incompatible with its welfare. I believe that that would cover some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. People who committed such an offence would fall foul of the cruelty provisions of the 2006 Act. Hanging dogs from trees to strengthen their jaws is in that category. It is also illegal to have aggressive dogs that cause harm to the public. It is important to convey the message from the House that those who break the law could be heavily fined and, in the worst cases, sent to prison.
	I remind hon. Members that dog fighting, like any other criminal activity, can be effectively tackled only if members of the public are willing to come forward and tell the police when they suspect that a fight is being arranged or has taken place. I urge members of the public who are worried about dog fighting in their local area to do that. However good one's laws, they can work only if we work together to end this abhorrent activity.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.